Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

derekwebb.tumblr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 43 posts

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#31

Post by cwillu »

solumunus wrote: post #13
cwillu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what good does that do those artists precisely? From the article: “For example, I am paid $0.00029 per stream of a song on Spotify, and even this amount depends on whether the song is being streamed by a paid user or someone using the service for free. This means it will take upwards of 3,500 streams of a single song on Spotify to earn $1.00 versus that same revenue for one iTunes song purchase (not to mention th…

It enables them to build small but dedicated global fan bases that support the artist directly. The alternative is all music is paid only and they could potentially make more money, except for the fact that they’re completely unknown and there is zero demand for their music.

It enables them to build small and entirely undedicated global fan bases.

And no, that is not the only alternative. There is a fine article linked at the top of this very page that points out alternatives that an actual living and breathing artist prefers.

You've been sold a repackaging of “paid in exposure” lie.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#32

Post by xboxnolifes »

hmokiguess wrote: post #6

I saw in a YouTube video once, and I'll paraphrase because I forgot, something that resonated well with me about piracy. They said piracy is never about cost, but almost always about a service issue. Basically people flocked to Napster (and the likes) at the time because it let them browse an infinitude of music which was, back then, incredible. That was just market demand validation, a latent problem waiting for a s…

Two times now that I've recently signed up for a streaming service to watch a show I'm interested in, I find out after signing up that I can only get 720p since I'm streaming to a browser. Money is part of it, but when it's easier to torrent 1080p than to pay money to get it, it's a service issue.

It's never just one thing either. People will try to narrow it down to one thing, and say cost or service fatigue is the dominant factor, but it doesn't work like that. The cost is an issue. Having to have 4 different streaming services for the shows you want is an issue. The quality of the apps are an issue. How much easier is the service compared to just torrenting is an issue.

At some point spending some time finding a seeded torrent sounds more pleasant than dealing with all of that. I can usually find a torrent, start a download, and begin watching a show faster than it takes me to figure out which streaming service it's on, decide if it's worth the price at that moment, and actually make an account with them and pay for it.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#33

Post by Grombobulous »

solumunus wrote: post #2

Without Spotify and (to a lesser extent) piracy before it, I wouldn’t be listening to 1/10th of the artists I listen to. Maybe it’s just moral cope but I can’t see how it can be made any better for niche or up and coming independent artists.

One issue with Spotify that's currently happening is that a lot of their curated playlists are quietly replacing real songs, often written by smaller/up and coming artists, with AI music.

You see something like "chill lo-fi" or "pool party beats" and you might put that on and not even realize that the artists aren't real.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#34

Post by mandeepj »

hmokiguess wrote: post #6

I saw in a YouTube video once, and I'll paraphrase because I forgot, something that resonated well with me about piracy. They said piracy is never about cost, but almost always about a service issue. Basically people flocked to Napster (and the likes) at the time because it let them browse an infinitude of music which was, back then, incredible. That was just market demand validation, a latent problem waiting for a s…

> which is why you see all of them now becoming "channels" inside each other

But you have to pay for those 'channels' separately, so subscription hell is still there. That explains why it's not a solution! Ideally, service providers should share revenue, and then it could be called a unified or frictionless experience.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#35

Post by n1ivih »

teach wrote: post #30
n1ivih wrote: post #23

Until we are honest about the Spotify payment model, how can we ever possibly come to a consensus of what is fair and what is not? These comment sections are full of misinformation, and posters are very rarely held accountable for spreading that misinformation. There absolutely is a conversation to be had here, but it is not the one that has taken place for years and years. To be fair to OP, the information wasn't qu…

This is a good clarification but I think the core issue is that Spotify (and Apple Music and Amazon Music and probably others) have chosen a business model in which consumers can listen to basically everything and yet artists do not get paid. The rightsholders suffer too yet they are complicit. This business model ALWAYS outcompetes any other, and can't be "fixed" imo, because no one will pay per-stream or pay $50 a…

Sure, the subscription model and free tier model were chosen by Spotify, but the payout model was and is a negotiation between DSPs and record labels and the big 3 record labels (universal, sony, warner) hold most of the leverage. Any changes to this model require sign off from those three and they aren't likely to want to change the model since it profits them so much. And I'm not really sure they suffer.. their argument re: why they still take so much from the artist portion of the revenue without actually physically manufacturing anything is because they attribute that cost to maintaining a database and such, which seems a bit disingenuous. At least when it comes to the big 3 I don't really care if they suffer, they've made screwing artists and consumers their business.

I guess you can imagine a world where the music industry saved itself somehow, but I don't see how that happens without the subscription based model. It's a fucked up industry and I'd love to have artists supported more but where is the money coming from? Fortunately, there are distributors like DistroKid.. DK charges a flat rate and passes on 100% of royalties earned to musicians.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#36

Post by QuercusMax »

hmokiguess wrote: post #6

I saw in a YouTube video once, and I'll paraphrase because I forgot, something that resonated well with me about piracy. They said piracy is never about cost, but almost always about a service issue. Basically people flocked to Napster (and the likes) at the time because it let them browse an infinitude of music which was, back then, incredible. That was just market demand validation, a latent problem waiting for a s…

I pay for Youtube premium, which gives me unlimited Youtube Music usage with no ads.

Yet I've built myself a yt-dlp-based system to pipe audio into my multiroom audio system (built on Snapcast). It will cache things locally so they play instantly, and I can mix my own music library with stuff from Youtube Music seamlessly, which is impossible with non-piratical means.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#37

Post by solumunus »

cwillu wrote: post #31
solumunus wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It enables them to build small but dedicated global fan bases that support the artist directly. The alternative is all music is paid only and they could potentially make more money, except for the fact that they’re completely unknown and there is zero demand for their music.

It enables them to build small and entirely undedicated global fan bases. And no, that is not the only alternative. There is a fine article linked at the top of this very page that points out alternatives that an actual living and breathing artist prefers. You've been sold a repackaging of “paid in exposure” lie.

I read the article and it’s not taking into consideration my point.

> It enables them to build small and entirely undedicated global fan bases.

It’s just not true. There are tons and tons of independent artists with small music careers who would almost certainly have no music career in a pre-Internet era, and the reason for that is free and wide distribution. It’s an incredible boon for small artists, especially in niche genres.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#38

Post by solumunus »

Grombobulous wrote: post #33
solumunus wrote: post #2

Without Spotify and (to a lesser extent) piracy before it, I wouldn’t be listening to 1/10th of the artists I listen to. Maybe it’s just moral cope but I can’t see how it can be made any better for niche or up and coming independent artists.

One issue with Spotify that's currently happening is that a lot of their curated playlists are quietly replacing real songs, often written by smaller/up and coming artists, with AI music. You see something like "chill lo-fi" or "pool party beats" and you might put that on and not even realize that the artists aren't real.

Yeh that sucks.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#39

Post by solumunus »

IncreasePosts wrote: post #27
cwillu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what good does that do those artists precisely? From the article: “For example, I am paid $0.00029 per stream of a song on Spotify, and even this amount depends on whether the song is being streamed by a paid user or someone using the service for free. This means it will take upwards of 3,500 streams of a single song on Spotify to earn $1.00 versus that same revenue for one iTunes song purchase (not to mention th…

I wonder how artist pay would change if each artist got a proportional cut of every listeners fee instead of listened bring pooled and paid out that way. I can listen to only indie artists all month long and they get laid about 15 cents from my listening. Surely more of that from my monthly fee is going to artists, but it is going to artists I don't even listen to like Taylor Swift or whoever

Makes way more sense to do it that way.

Re: As a musician, I prefer illegal downloading over Spotify (2011)

#40

Post by jokteur »

smt88 wrote: post #9
cwillu wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what good does that do those artists precisely? From the article: “For example, I am paid $0.00029 per stream of a song on Spotify, and even this amount depends on whether the song is being streamed by a paid user or someone using the service for free. This means it will take upwards of 3,500 streams of a single song on Spotify to earn $1.00 versus that same revenue for one iTunes song purchase (not to mention th…

Spotify popularity doesn’t bring in cash directly, but it leads to increased ticket sales for live shows. And Spotify will recommend you to new listeners in a way that piracy won’t. I have a personal example: Spotify recommended a band to me that I’ve now seen live three times, and they’re so obscure that I never would have heard of them without it. None of my friends knew them either.

Yes, but Spotify increasly does nothing against AI generated music that gets inserted into playlists, auto recommendation feature, ...

So now, artists are competing against AI generated music, that is often manipulated to take listening spots away from actual artists.

Post reply on HN